Learn to love presidential powers – a reply to Stephen Grootes and Trevor Manuel

In his article, “An argument for redefining presidential powers in South Africa” (Daily Maverick 25 March 2024), Stephen Grootes makes the case for reducing the powers of the South African president, particularly the president’s powers of appointment.

He points to comments made recently by Trevor Manuel at The Gathering, who similarly takes issue with the president’s authority to make appointments to key public offices. The former minister even makes the suggestion that the president’s current powers may have been an oversight and ought to be revisited. He asks whether such powers are “consonant with the spirit of our Constitution?”.

It must be said, however, that Manuel neglects the well-documented history of the painstaking efforts that went into writing this globally admired document. Its ingenuity does not stop with the Bill of Rights; it extends to the less-explored sections dealing with executive powers, which are read all too briefly and dismissively – a tendency encouraged by South African political scientists and constitutional lawyers for whom executive power is a bogeyman; the harbinger of tyranny.

Manuel also neglects his own party’s history – the ANC long contemplated and debated what kind of constitution the country should have after liberation. Two recent bestsellers – André Odendaal’s Dear Comrade President and Dan Mafora’s Capture in the Court – offer just such an overview.

Both men seem to be in agreement, then, that these powers should be curtailed, with Grootes, in his article, even suggesting that “there are measures citizens can take to try to weaken the powers of the president”. (Although he does not point to any concrete ones.) His article plays out scenarios which may lead to such a “weakened” presidency, including the seeming inevitability of coalition governments.

Here’s one: “If a president believes they are about to leave office or the party in power is about to be replaced, they might well agree to a reduction of their power.”

Of course, the article assumes that there is a desire for a “weak” president in South Africa. Such an assumption would be based on findings contrary to every bit of evidence regarding the way South Africans engage with the state and the expectations they have towards it when they vote. South Africans principally vote because they want the government to make a difference to their socioeconomic conditions. That is hard to do when the leader of the country would have their hands tied.

What about the democratic process?